It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
For me, he just doesn't cut it physically for that kind of portrayal for one, particularly in comparison to who we have had in the role previously (and with whom comparisons will inevitably be made subconsciously).
Secondly, he has never come across to me as suave or unconcerned, based on his seminal performances in CR/QoS. He set the tone for his Bond in those two films and he was perfect for both, which were tailored to him (I believe he was cast because they knew he could nail CR). Connery as a person had the insouciance in him (watch him in some of the interviews or on set with the ladies). Moore did too. It's inherent to their personalities and so they could deliver it naturally on screen. It's in their demeanour as much as in their look. I don't see that with Craig. I see a guy who's supposed to care. Not one who doesn't.
Thirdly as you note, he comes across as arrogant when he goes here. Watch the facial expressions in M's office post-credits, or when he's challenging Madeleine at the clinic. What's with the snarl? It takes a certain kind of actor to deliver that Bondian flippancy without it appearing overly smug (as Brosnan was accused of on occasion), nasty (Craig imho) or just out place (Dalton).
Yes, I agree with you that the more realistic take of both Dalton and Craig doesn't square with the well accepted cinematic aloofness of Bond, at least to me.
If I were him, I'd stick to genuine and human in the next one. Go 'Dalton' rather than 'Moore'. Or even better yet, go 'Craig'.
Have to say you have a point.
He comes across as a monumental prick in the scene where he meets C.
Neither the literary Bond nor any of the previous incarnations ever had such a lack of respect for his superiors. Even when Frederick Gray was at his most pompous Rog and Tim kept their cool.
Ok we all know that Andrew Scott is obviously a scenery chewing villain but Bond diesnt and has no reason not to treat him with respect at that stage.
I didn't have an issue with how he interacted with C but looking back that M scene is pretty poor. They seem to build up this sense of mutual respect and understanding in SF but then for some reason Bond keeps him completely in the dark in SP, and the whole scene was just poorly written/acted imo. Bond is so smug and sarcastic for no reason and while M has good reason to be angry it was pretty over the top. It was like a cocky kid at school winding up one of the really strict miserable teachers.
I think it was a hangover from when M was supposed to be a Spectre agent. That way that whole scene and Bond being grounded would have served a purpose (Bond would have been right to keep him in the dark, M trying to keep him out of action would make sense). As it stands it just seems weird, and pointless. Why tell Moneypenny and not M why he really was in Mexico? And why include that in the script at all if he was still going to get the stuff from Q and go off anyway with no repurcussions at all?
I didn't have an issue with how he interacted with C but looking back that M scene is pretty poor. They seem to build up this sense of mutual respect and understanding in SF but then for some reason Bond keeps him completely in the dark in SP, and the whole scene was just poorly written/acted imo. Bond is so smug and sarcastic for no reason and while M has good reason to be angry it was pretty over the top. It was like a cocky kid at school winding up one of the really strict miserable teachers.
I think it was a hangover from when M was supposed to be a Spectre agent. That way that whole scene and Bond being grounded would have served a purpose (Bond would have been right to keep him in the dark, M trying to keep him out of action would make sense). As it stands it just seems weird, and pointless. Why tell Moneypenny and not M why he really was in Mexico? And why include that in the script at all if he was still going to get the stuff from Q and go off anyway with no repurcussions at all?[/quote]
This is a good point. Just all so unnecessary. They didn't really need the whole 'message from the grave' thing, they only included it so to be able to include Judi Dench in the film when really the whole point in Skyfall was it was a big goodbye to her character. So many needless bits. Why would M not mention Sciarra to Bond before she died if it was so important? Why not leave a dossier or file on him to help Bond? Why not leave her files to Moneypenny so they could go through them with the full might of MI6 behind Bond? Instead it has to be a cryptic secret which gives Bond nothing to go off, for some reason Bond then has to go off in rogue agent mode again and hide things from his superiors, and then to top it all off Bond actually seems to get some childish enjoyment through provoking the new M by refusing to divulge what it is he's up to.
It would have been so much more sensible, simple and ultimately achieve the same outcome if the new M had sent Bond to Mexico City, Bond had killed Sciarra, returned to London and been assigned his mission of going to Rome and infiltrating Spectre, with the eventual lead back to C being discovered down the line. That way he wouldn't need the childish hiding things from M, he wouldn't need to push Moneypenny and Q into risking their jobs to help him without authority to do so and he wouldn't need to rob the Aston Martin.
There's this obsession with Bond acting rogue, keeping things hidden from his boss, doing things without authority/following procedure. It worked in Licence to Kill as a one-off and was understandable given the revenge for Leiter story, yet Spectre is the 3rd or even 4th in a row now where Bond spends all or part of the film going off doing things without authority and without following procedure. Its really getting boring and time they dropped it and Bond behaved like a proper agent with a mission to complete.
I liked Dench's cameo but I can't argue with any of this. And even if they really wanted the Dench cameo and the whole mission from beyond the grave angle, I still see no reason for Bond to keep Mallory in the dark. I've got no problem with Bond going rogue when it's done well (LTK is my favourite Bond film) but in SP they seemed to include it for the sake of it, because Bond can't just go on a mission any more he also has to defy authority and dodge the stuffy higher ups who should just let him do his job. I don't mind the whole stuffy bearucrats getting in the way angle but M of all people should be on Bond's side, he should be an ally not an obstacle to overcome, and this is made worse by the fact that he's completely in the right. Bond goes off on his own, is involved in an incident that had a whole building blown up, and instead of just explaining to his boss (who by the end of the last film they'd established as an ally who understood Bond does what he has to do) what happened and getting permission to follow things up further, he makes a smug quip about needing some holiday.
It didn't come across as Bond defying orders to get the job done no matter what, it just came across as him being a dick, not only keeping his new boss in the dark for absoloutely no reason at all but acting really smug about it as well. I think they were probably going for a "woah look at Bond, isn't he such a cool loveable rogue" sort of thing but instead ended up with "well that was pointless, what a knob".
Interestingly, since I made my earlier post, I've tried to locate one of the early trailers which had Bond delivering the 'holiday' line. Craig did it with a 'snarl' and it looked really out of place in the trailer, which had a different camera shot of his face than the final cut. I can't for the life of me find it anywhere on youtube anymore. All that's there is the one from the film, which is better, but still pretty poorly delivered.
Yeah, and I wouldn't have minded Mallory being the traitor to be honest. I think if they'd done that in SF it would have felt a bit predictable because we were all wondering if Fiennes would be a villain, but if they'd pulled the rug from under us in SP and revealed that the mutual understanding and growing trust between him and Bond from the last film was all an act, that could have been a nice twist. And it definitely would have made Dench's M giving him the mission (just add another line to the video about trusting noone because she doesn't know how deep this goes), Bond keeping Mallory in the dark and Bond being grounded make a lot more sense.
Think its a terrible idea but is it any worse than stepbrothergate?
If Oberhauser had been just Oberhauser and Mallory had been the traitor would we have preferred it or are they both cut from same dismal cloth?
Or no Oberhauser and just Blofeld (who Bond has never met obviously) and have Mallory as the traitor?
Not sure which of the three is better or worse to be honest - they're all as bad as each other.
Here's an idea: why not have no traitor and not desecrate the character of Blofeld either. I wonder if that one ever popped up in brainstorming sessions?
I'd have signed off on it just for that small improvement.
Hahahaha. Absolutely
C is an all-out caracature by that scene. Though it did at least give us a great payoff line from Feinnes:
"Now we know what C stands for"
Shame they added the "careless" though.
I always understood it like this. Lying to M Bond does not implicate him.
I'd buy this but he happily implicates Q and Moneypenny. Why would he lie to protect M, who as a powerful man in government would likely land on his feet anyway, but get the secretary and the tech guy (two disposable employees) involved? And the M scene doesn't seem like Bond lying to protect him to me. It just seems like him smugly winding him up. If that's what they were going for they should have been a lot more sincere imo.
I tend to agree. On second and third viewing it seems more effort was put in to making it a homage to films of Bond past that they overlooked glaring weaknesses in the script and missed out on a glorious chance to make Spectre into a Bond classic. All the ingredients were there - Spectre, Blofeld, a return to the evil villain-secret lair-henchman in pursuit formula.
Die Another Day became tied up in being a homage to the other films and the 40th anniversary that it was left with a ridiculous plot and horrific CGI effects. Spectre is slightly less ridiculous and tries to be serious and is done to a better standard to DAD but it still seems they are making it into almost a parody of itself rather than a worthy standalone entry into the series.
Bond 25 is their last chance to save Craig's legacy as far as I am concerned. Make a mess of the next one and apart from CR they'll have squandered the Craig era.
So you don't rate QOS and/or SF either ?
That isn't what is going on in Spectre, or at least if it is it isn't made very clear and isn't done very well. M appears to be very serious in disciplining Bond, Bond stands there with a smirk on his face before going home and then bringing in Moneypenny and Q to his activities.
I would say that M as a powerful man in government has far more to lose than a secretary who can find a desk job elsewhere and a geek. Especially since Mallory is perceived as in a very vulnerable position during the film. The higher he is the deeper the fall. As for Q and Moneypenny I'd need to see the movie again but they are the ones who go out of their way to help Bond in spite of the risks. But in any case Bond knows or at least can safely bet they'll stay quiet, something M might not feel capable of giving his position and the pressure of his job.
Kind of like how SF was a better version of TWINE? Yeah, I guess I can see that.
Well I'd say it's the other way around in both cases and I guess therefore this statement belongs in this thread.
DAD is ludicrous but it knows that it is and embraces the insanity of it all, SP on the other is equally stupid but pretends to be clever. Moreover, for all its faults nothing in DAD pisses on the Bond legacy as much as the foster brother 'reveal'. Ugh.
Both though are essentially "homage" films and go backwards rather than forwards (god I sound pompous but I do remember thinking that when I first saw it - eventhough I quite liked it).